Arizona weekly citizen., 1887-10-01
Shaw vs. Co. of Pima.
Opinion of the Court

Opinion Of the Court.
 Much has been sRid and many of tha cases that have been quoted will he oonN cured Ill without question. 1t ia ,r1a the salsry ol sn office IS incident Ia tbe title Of the office. IL IS also true tb ,t Puolic policy cannot be invoked by n usurper ot an office as he cannot insist upon his own wrong. This case stands upon somewhat different principles It IS said that the people elect the sheriff That IS true, but by the forms of lsw people cannot meet on the plaza, nor can they elect an officer except in Aeeor- dance with the provisions of law and at that tune provided by law,
 The law provides that when su elsc- tion is held certain officers shall canvass the returns and cersify the results. and sach certificate is the title to the office until questioned.
 by 'he snme law 1t IS provided that q party who IS not satisfied with the certi- neate oy Rlvlng proper notice shall have 6 contest of shat election in the district court, and that brings the whole iuris- dlotion Of the question. Co enquire vheth- CT he was elected, into the district court TOT ceteFmluatIun. All thls was done ID this case Rnd the court adjujged that faul was eutied to the office and SO de- clarei it.
 JudGmeCt was rendered JsnusTy 3i. lSS0, and unt Es alled, reversed, set aside or illed into question for over a year when motion for new trial WAS made. By The law oi Ihis terSltory Q motion for new ;rIAl shBil not stay inc proceedings. Eetweea Jsnugry lS-5 and JanCsTy lSsG. dr. Paul had iae Judgment ot She cUuyr iGa: he was en-i- lied so ,ue office and was ia aC,aa! Dos e-slOD o5 'he Oilice with this highest ev. ldsncs of tho iisie. That being true tat county cOmIiFslCDrrs caGs ! his saiEsy to Ue pald. l. is l. this point that pub he policy Is !o be considered The DUO lie were EloTe Interested 10 hsviug ihe functions Of she Uhice of sherif properly administered than ia who administered them. The board Of coGnty commission CTS cannot Try ,he question oi wh0 is cn iitled to the Cfrce. They must pay the s8lary io She persSn who is ID office witL evidence Of tItle,
 Pubic policy requires this and if they do 70 they sha!l be protected. By ;he statutes ct this territory the sElsFy Is tI l ed st $ ,JO0, but out of ;hst sslsry he l. required 10 PaE !he salary Of under sheriff, deputies aud other expenses should the supervisors withhold the sal ary the Ciii ser in casTge of tho office FUuid De without fine means of perform !2E the functions Of the office. These functions mus b5 performed bg so- ] body; the c2a8ty comm ssi0le.s Elu see thst thsy E-e p-riCrEled.
 To this extent VU3.c policy must D invoEe 70 require thIrd parties to crG- wi.5 tle is f4cto officer Gs II he Was ths a, iure officer.
 V NG;ie ]: ls true thas ba who was oe- | clsFet so oe legally elected wolli hsy,
 @ right f action sgdIaat Ir. Paul ts: tue suoluments ot tae office, 1t IS here sought 90 recover against tue cluc ,
 who vas not party to the contest and had uo power to control it, salary which was paid 10 Ar. Paul when he
 sas ID the office with the highest egi ] dence of his ,itls-a judgement Oi cum petent cog-t.
 | Agte;E wards a motion for a new trial was made, 3ew tEi.. GEgoGsd, 8ppe al was taken ihereirom to the supreme 1 court and ny agreement the suit was oI5- ni-ssd and Shaw IBluc!ed In the uffice The county hsy:lE pad over the sal ETy to gle officer C5-srs.b.y entitled tO receISs tie slma c,u-.O. nov be reqcig- eG fu pay the sane iC anyone else. The fiaGl jldgueLt is ior .he Geieudent and sgs!ns- the glaia;!E.